Share this poll, because the more votes the better!
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.com
The callous way in which the life of this poor pig has been discussed is a disgrace and indictment on the character of the those involved.
If your own pathetic lives were on the line, and people were discussing you in this manner, you'd all wet yourselves and cry for mummy.
The Human Race has lost any pretense to compassion.
I vote "transparent"; because I think it would be great if more of our food (meat and non-meat) was transparent in its origins. Put a label on the tucker that indicates how it was created, how it was transported, how it was turned into food, how old it is etc (and I use the term "tucker" because similar transparency would be great if it applied to bread and vegetables). If I wanted to eat Wilbur or his siblings I could review the farm website. I could visit the farm, I could avail myself of an education that is much more challenging to obtain in relation to other foods. If the farm lies, then consumer protection law could be used to prevent such misrepresentation. I think a "transparent" label would be fantastic and encourage other food stuff to be open about their practices (and in being open be challenged by the consumer to improve them).
Using terms such as "ethical" will result in arguments as to whether it is ethical to eat meat, or meat with a name like Wilbur. That is a personal decision, and not something I think belongs in a marketing label. Wilbur is a living breathing pig. Come Christmas he will be someone's ham. These are the facts and a core aspect of the ethics in eating Wilbur. I think it is important we understand that process and that as much as possible Wilbur is treated with respect. Knowing how my meat has been raised, and slaughtered is important to me. Telling me it is ethical requires I take the word of a marketer at face value and I do not trust advertising enough for that. I want to make my own ethical decisions and will really appreciate the transparency.
Hence, "Transparent Ham" may not be popular, but I think it is accurate.
Pork is a totally unnecessary part of our diet - Wilbur was bred and killed by and for people with no conscience.
He deserves to live a full life and not be killed just to momentarily satisfy some humans tastebuds.
When you kill him you will be killing a piece of yourself.
And for the record, I voted 'Other' - for the same reasons as @Leafygreen.
@Melissa Roberts - would be interesting to see how many consumers chose to purchase pork if it was labelled as such, or how many of those who participated in this experiment would eat Wilbur himself if given the opportunity. I myself would definitely still eat Wilbur, but then I've always been a firm believer that everyone should at least see an animal killed and butchered before they make the decision to eat meat.
@Richard Malpass - It's disappointing that rather than participating in the discussion around how to best raise livestock to minimise overall suffering, you're dropping the same tired argument. We as a species eat meat - that's not going to change. As the smartest animal in the food chain we have an ethical obligation to be aware of where our food comes from, and to ensure that the animals that do end up on our plates are treated as well as possible; this is the entire point of the discussion you're attempting to subvert.
"One bad day", in anyone's books that's about the worst day anything could have...your killed for the taste of your flesh on human tongues.
What about equal consideration of interests? The consideration of the pigs right to live to an old age free from the persecution of humans and to die a natural death...not at the hands of a human animal murderer.
I think it should be labeled "For ignorant, selfish human consumption only".
How about "Free to be a pig" pork ?
I said other.
Without a defined standard that is 3rd party verified by a recognised independent auditor I wouldn't believe any of the above.
I might accept them if there was a clear Code of Practice, readily available, that spelled out the care protocol.
just like the Free Range, or Creulty Free certification dilemma, the 3 opions are too wooly..
Whose ethics? On what part of the Vegan to Carnivore continuum?
What does 'transparent' mean? It's been done via a radio program, who is verifying the info provided (no disrespect, I'm not saying anyone is lying)
What community did the certification? (and what was their qualificaitions and to what standard?)
@Phil as opposed to the consumption of 'rotting vegetal material'?
What about 'open range pork'?
How about - Decomposing dead animal - that's exactly what it is.
be honest. label it Wilbur. For example: part of Wilbur's leg, or the flesh around Wilbur's ribs.
The double meaning of 'transparent pork' is confusing.